International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp 901–908 | Cite as

Single-incision mesh repair versus traditional native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: results of a cohort study

  • Tsung-Hsien Su
  • Hui-Hsuan Lau
  • Wen-Chu Huang
  • Ching-Hung Hsieh
  • Rhu-Chu Chang
  • Chin-Hui Su
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

To compare the efficacy and safety of the Elevate™ anterior and posterior prolapse repair system and traditional vaginal native tissue repair in the treatment of stage 2 or higher pelvic organ prolapse.


A cohort study was conducted between January 2010 and July 2012. Patients who underwent transvaginal pelvic reconstruction surgery for prolapse were recruited. The primary outcome was anatomical success 1 year after surgery. The secondary outcome included changes in the quality of life and surgical complications. Recurrence of prolapse was defined as stage 2 or higher prolapse based upon the pelvic organ prolapse qQuantification system.


Two hundred and one patients (100 in the Elevate™ repair group and 101 in the traditional repair group) were recruited and analyzed. The anatomical success rate of the anterior compartment was significantly higher in the Elevate™ repair group than in the traditional repair group (98 % vs 87 %, p = 0.006), but not for the apical (99 % vs. 6 %, p = 0.317) or posterior (100 % vs 97 %, p = 0.367) compartments after a median 12 months of follow-up. Both groups showed significant improvements in the quality of life after surgery with no statistical difference. Mesh-related complications included extrusion (3 %) and the need for revision of the vaginal wound (1 %). Those in the mesh repair group had a longer hospital stay (p = 0.04), operative time (p < 0.001), and greater estimated blood loss (p = 0.05). Other complications were comparable with no statistical difference.


The Elevate™ prolapse repair system had a better 1-year anatomical cure rate of the anterior compartment than traditional repair, with slightly increased morbidity.


Colporrhaphy Pelvic organ prolapse Surgical mesh Vaginal surgery 



Pelvic organ prolapse


Urogenital Distress Inventory (short form)


Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (short form)


Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (short form)


  1. 1.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kenton K, Mueller ER (2006) The global burden of female pelvic floor disorders. BJU Int 98 [Suppl 1]:1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maher C, Baessler K (2006) Surgical management of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: an evidence based literature review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:195–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM (2010) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 14:CD004014Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dwyer PL, O’Reilly BA (2004) Transvaginal repair of anterior and posterior compartment prolapse with Atrium polypropylene mesh. BJOG 111:831–836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C; Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364:1826–1836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Su TH, Liu PE, Lau HH, Huang WC, Lin TY, Hsieh CH (2011) Impact of Prolift procedure on bladder function and symptoms in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 22:585–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    FDA (2011) FDA Safety Communications: UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Safety/AlertandNotices/ucm262435.htm. Accessed 13 July 2011
  9. 9.
    Haylen BT, Sand PK, Swift SE, Maher C, Moran PA, Freeman RM (2012) Transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: more FDA concerns—positive reactions are possible. Int Urogynecol J 23:11–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murphy M, Holzberg A, van Raalte H, Kohli N, Goldman HB, Lucente V, Network PS (2012) Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: “UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse”. Int Urogynecol J 23:5–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moore RD, Mitchell GK, Miklos JR (2012) Single-incision vaginal approach to treat cystocele and vault prolapse with an anterior wall mesh anchored apically to the sacrospinous ligaments. Int Urogynecol J 23:85–91PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lukban JC, Roovers JP, Vandrie DM et al (2012) Single-incision apical and posterior mesh repair: 1-year prospective outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 23:1413–1419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stanford EJ, Moore RD, Roovers JP et al (2013) Elevate anterior/apical: 12-month data showing safety and efficacy in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 19:79–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA et al (1995) Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: The incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory. Continence program for women research group. Neurourol Urodyn 14:131–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Su TH, Lau HH (2010) Validation of a Chinese version of the short form of the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire. J Sex Med 7:3940–3945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Su TH, Lau HH, Huang WC et al (2009) Short term impact on female sexual function of pelvic floor reconstruction with the Prolift procedure. J Sex Med 6:3201–3207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dietz V, Huisman M, Joyce M et al (2008) Functional outcome after sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterine descensus. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:747–752PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tsung-Hsien Su
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 7
  • Hui-Hsuan Lau
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Wen-Chu Huang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ching-Hung Hsieh
    • 5
  • Rhu-Chu Chang
    • 2
  • Chin-Hui Su
    • 2
    • 3
    • 6
  1. 1.Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMackay Memorial HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Mackay MedicineNursing and Management CollegeTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Taipei Medical UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.Mackay Medical CollegeTaipeiTaiwan
  5. 5.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyClinic of Fu Jen Catholic UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  6. 6.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyMackay Memorial HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  7. 7.TaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations